3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Artificial intelligence performance in image-based ovarian cancer identification: A systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Accurate identification of ovarian cancer (OC) is of paramount importance in clinical treatment success. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a potentially reliable assistant for the medical imaging recognition. We systematically review articles on the diagnostic performance of AI in OC from medical imaging for the first time.

          Methods

          The Medline, Embase, IEEE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library databases were searched for related studies published until August 1, 2022. Inclusion criteria were studies that developed or used AI algorithms in the diagnosis of OC from medical images. The binary diagnostic accuracy data were extracted to derive the outcomes of interest: sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), and Area Under the Curve (AUC). The study was registered with the PROSPERO, CRD42022324611.

          Findings

          Thirty-four eligible studies were identified, of which twenty-eight studies were included in the meta-analysis with a pooled SE of 88% (95%CI: 85–90%), SP of 85% (82–88%), and AUC of 0.93 (0.91–0.95). Analysis for different algorithms revealed a pooled SE of 89% (85–92%) and SP of 88% (82–92%) for machine learning; and a pooled SE of 88% (84–91%) and SP of 84% (80–87%) for deep learning. Acceptable diagnostic performance was demonstrated in subgroup analyses stratified by imaging modalities (Ultrasound, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, or Computed Tomography), sample size (≤300 or >300), AI algorithms versus clinicians, year of publication (before or after 2020), geographical distribution (Asia or non Asia), and the different risk of bias levels (≥3 domain low risk or < 3 domain low risk).

          Interpretation

          AI algorithms exhibited favorable performance for the diagnosis of OC through medical imaging. More rigorous reporting standards that address specific challenges of AI research could improve future studies.

          Funding

          This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 82073647 to Q-JW and No. 82103914 to T-TG), LiaoNing Revitalization Talents Program (No. XLYC1907102 to Q-JW), and 345 Talent Project of Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University (No. M0268 to Q-JW and No. M0952 to T-TG).

          Related collections

          Most cited references85

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Cancer Statistics, 2021

            Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths in the United States and compiles the most recent data on population-based cancer occurrence. Incidence data (through 2017) were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data (through 2018) were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2021, 1,898,160 new cancer cases and 608,570 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. After increasing for most of the 20th century, the cancer death rate has fallen continuously from its peak in 1991 through 2018, for a total decline of 31%, because of reductions in smoking and improvements in early detection and treatment. This translates to 3.2 million fewer cancer deaths than would have occurred if peak rates had persisted. Long-term declines in mortality for the 4 leading cancers have halted for prostate cancer and slowed for breast and colorectal cancers, but accelerated for lung cancer, which accounted for almost one-half of the total mortality decline from 2014 to 2018. The pace of the annual decline in lung cancer mortality doubled from 3.1% during 2009 through 2013 to 5.5% during 2014 through 2018 in men, from 1.8% to 4.4% in women, and from 2.4% to 5% overall. This trend coincides with steady declines in incidence (2.2%-2.3%) but rapid gains in survival specifically for nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). For example, NSCLC 2-year relative survival increased from 34% for persons diagnosed during 2009 through 2010 to 42% during 2015 through 2016, including absolute increases of 5% to 6% for every stage of diagnosis; survival for small cell lung cancer remained at 14% to 15%. Improved treatment accelerated progress against lung cancer and drove a record drop in overall cancer mortality, despite slowing momentum for other common cancers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.

              In 2003, the QUADAS tool for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies was developed. Experience, anecdotal reports, and feedback suggested areas for improvement; therefore, QUADAS-2 was developed. This tool comprises 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Signalling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-2 tool is applied in 4 phases: summarize the review question, tailor the tool and produce review-specific guidance, construct a flow diagram for the primary study, and judge bias and applicability. This tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                eClinicalMedicine
                EClinicalMedicine
                eClinicalMedicine
                Elsevier
                2589-5370
                17 September 2022
                November 2022
                17 September 2022
                : 53
                : 101662
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China
                [b ]Clinical Research Center, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China
                [c ]Key Laboratory of Precision Medical Research on Major Chronic Disease, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China
                [d ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China
                [e ]Department of Radiology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China
                [f ]Department of Ultrasound, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China
                [g ]Department of Intelligent Medicine, China Medical University, China
                [h ]National Clinical Research Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cancer Biology Research Centre (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education) and Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Tongji Hospital, Wuhan, China
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinical Research Center, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Address: No. 36, San Hao Street, Shenyang, Liaoning 110004, PR China. wuqj@ 123456sj-hospital.org
                [1]

                Joint first authors.

                Article
                S2589-5370(22)00392-3 101662
                10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101662
                9486055
                36147628
                62897515-a404-4573-999e-5f68661cc271
                © 2022 The Author(s)

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 28 June 2022
                : 25 August 2022
                : 30 August 2022
                Categories
                Articles

                artificial intelligence,medical imaging,meta-analysis,ovarian cancer,ai, artificial intelligence,oc, ovarian cancer,se, sensitivity,sp, specificity,auc, area under the curve,us, ultrasound,mri, magnetic resonance imaging,ct, computed tomography,ml, machine learning,dl, deep learning,xai, explainable artificial intelligence

                Comments

                Comment on this article